I was in the Post Exchange this morning when I noticed the new Army Times lead story. They were featuring a story on DADT. We have been focusing on serving in the trenches with gays. They raised some questions about housing and other benefits that gays would get. It never occurred to me that with the abolishment of the DADT policy that Gays may receive the same resources and benefits as hetero married couples. Sounds like they are using the military as a way to Nationalize Gay marriage. What do you all think? The military has some of the most conservative regulations in our society (some may say Draconian). Liberals can easily say that changes that are successful in the military will work in our society at large.
marriage and sexuality is none of the government’s business.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Usually it is the marriage shouldn’t have anything to do with the government soapbox I get on and leave the sexuality. … . for other folks to sort out. Yes, there should not be any government say in marriage or sexuality.
Any sources for all these benefits they will receive? My subscription to Army Times seems to have lapsed.
I looked at the online issue and didn’t see anything on the article. They want you to buy a paper copy so know online freebies. My thought process was simple. If you are allowed to openly express your sexual orientation, then you should be allowed to pursue meaningful relationships which would ultimately culminate with some type of legal union or marriage per se. Well all married soldiers are authorized to receive a tax free stipend for housing that is based on rank and location (Basic Allowance for Housing - BAH). This stipend is usually enough to pay the mortgage on a decent home depending on where you leave. The soldier never feels the hit in the wallet because the pay is extra (not to mention tax free). Married soldiers also receive an allowance for meals or Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). For most soldiers that is another 240 a month that is tax free. When a soldier is separated from their family for more than 30 days and 300 miles they get Family Separation pay which I think is around 150 now. Entitlements aside, how would you like to explain to little Bobby or Suzy why the family living next door consist of two men and no women? I foresee problems on the horizon.
From the other thread, the same question was asked and it seems only a couple STATES recognize it, has nothing to with federal ANYTHING. I do not see how people are making this out to be removing DADT-turns into gay marriage is the new law and they now run the country.
Nonsense.
The nuclear family, formed by heterosexuals, is the most natural form of social organization.
Any other ersatz “family” has been shown repeatedly to be less than advantageous.
It is in the best interest of a functional “society” to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
It is in the best interest of a functional “society” to make the marriage contract subject to civil enforcement.
Nah, divorces cause way more problems, screw more people out of stuff they worked for, and major emotional problems for kids.
My take on the issue is this. The military is one of the last bastions of All American values that have been part of our history for centuries. When ever there is a fundamental change in Military culture it usually leads to a shift in civilian culture. The liberals would have plenty of firepower to use to push for National Gay unions/marriages if they can turn to the military as an example of how homosexual behavior won’t effect the moral fiber of the country as a whole. That is why I say that this move could be a social experiment. In retrospect the last major culture change the military had was probably desegregation. I wonder how many soldier experienced trepidation about that policy change?
In retrospect the last major culture change the military had was probably desegregation.
Uhm wasnt women in the military after desegregation? I really dont feel like looking it up, but it seems blacks were there before women.
The GLBT lobby would like us to believe that sexual orientation is no different from race or gender, so we should abandon our moralist rhetoric and just allow the social movement to happen; as usual, it will begin in our Army.
We’ve already laid the groundwork with Consideration Of Others training and other psychobabble intended to portray those with objections to such behavior as “the ones with the problem.”
I disrespectfully disgree.
This is an ill-timed distraction from more urgent matters which is rapidly eroding my faith in our senior uniformed leadership.
AC
It is when people’s lives are on the line such as the military.
The military is a gov entity not society at large.
Says who?
There are 3 primary purposes of why combat arms is male only.
-
So you don’t get Johny doing stupid shit because his crush Jane is pinned down, and bleeding. Males will do stupid shit when they see a female in distress especially if its a female the male has a crush on (or other relationship).
-
Females cannot keep themselves clean in the field for extended periods of time, and they have the possibility of suffering mental changes during menstruation periods. They also do not have the same physical traits as males, and are less suited to combat arms requirements. This is generally speaking. We all know of a butch female who can hack it like the males but that is not representative of the entire female gender.
-
Combat arms are often forced to cohabitate in small areas, share tents, showers, latrines, bunks, ect.
Gays do not apply to number 2 but they apply to 1 and 3.
The same issues will arise with males and females if you have 2 gay boys under contact, and Johny see’s his butt buddy getting shot at while bleeding out.
You cannot also force a straight male soldier to shower with or bunk with a gay soldier. Just like female and male facilities are separated. Its not right to force a straight soldier to shower with a gay soldier just like no person of authority would ever force a female to shower with the males. They would probably face UCMJ charges.
Im sure the liberals would love to “conquer” the military by forcing gays within its ranks but that is a purely ideological goal not one based on any type of reality. These are the same idiots who accuse our troops of being baby killers, murderers, ect.
BTW I am pro-gay marriage on the citizen side, and think they should be able to raise kids. I do not think its beneficial to the military. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with race like segregation during WW2. The military is about accomplishing their mission not appeasing every minority group out there. Whats next? Blind and deaf soldiers so we’re not hurting anyone’s feelings? If a segment of the population is more of a burden than a help they have no business being in a uniform.
And no forcing a straight male solider to shower in the nude with a gay soldier is not “cool” or the “future”. I would not force your daughter to bathe with my son in the nude which has the same intrinsic errors of judgment as straights showering with gays.
It’s an end run they are trying to pull.
I say keep DADT as is. You wanna serve? Then STFU and serve in silence. If not, then separate arrangements and facilities for everyone. An “Opt-Out” should be available for those that do not want to share rooms or shower facilities and “their” rank should be PINK, so heteros will know the difference.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman to form a family. Since it requires a man and a woman to make a marriage, gays cannot marry.
However, if they want to come up with a “Domestic Partner” or some other type of thing to fit their culture to gain certain rights, that’s different
The concept of gay marriage is a couple thousand years old.
You should do some research on where the term lesbian originated from.
If you don’t want the government in your bedroom, then keep your bedroom buggery out of Military public service.
Shut your mouth, pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Last I checked, clarification on what you choose to lick or suck is not a perquisite for this function.